Loading...
Resolution 12932CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12932 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS- 97 -02, FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA- 97 -01, REZONING R- 97 -03, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD- 97 -02, DESIGN REVIEW DR- 97 -54, AND A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A PROPOSAL TO BE LOCATED AT 2020 SHERMAN (NORTHEAST OF THE CORNER OF BUENA VISTA AND SHERMAN /ATLANTIC AVENUE) WHEREAS, an application was made on May 5, 1997 by Wind River Systems requesting approval for development of approximately 371,000 gross square feet of space in five office and/or research and development buildings located on the Oakland — Alameda Estuary, on the west side of Alaska Basin, northeast of the point where Atlantic Avenue ends and feeds into Sherman Street. The project would include associated parking and landscaping, a minimum of two acres of public shoreline access and pier areas, and a reconstructed pier. The net land area consists of about 20.4 acres (within a 32.225 —acre site; about 11.8 acres are submerged); and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to recognize the deletion of a portion of the project site from designation as part of the Encinal Terminals, which is reserved in the Seaport Plan for port use and to change the General Plan Diagram to relocate designated open space within the project site from an inland location to a shoreline location; Rezoning from a combination of M -2, Heavy Industrial (Manufacturing) (the easterly one —third of the site), and M -1- PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay (the westerly two— thirds of the land area) to C —M —PD, Commercial— Manufacturing District with a PD overlay; Planned Development Approval to establish development standards including parking provisions, a Signage Program, landscaping and emergency access requirements; Design Review approval; Lot Line Adjustment and/or Subdivision to divide and rearrange the lot lines of some individual parcels which include areas not part of the project site, to consolidate the parcels within the project site (eleven separate properties or parts of properties), and to configure five new parcels for the five proposed buildings; Development Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Applicant; Disposition and Development Agreement to address conveyance of Community Improvement Commission (CIC) jurisdiction and/or CIC— acquired property or easement to the applicant, including the "Planatal Corporation" parcel, and other actions required by the CIC; and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on July 18, 1997, and plan revisions were accepted on August 18, 1997; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry with a Park and Public Open Space corridor on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the westerly portion of the subject property is located in a M -I -PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing), Planned Development Zoning District; and the easterly portion is located in a M -2, General (Manufacturing) Industrial District; and 1 WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Business and Wateifiont Improvement Project and a small portion is located within the boundary of the West End Community Improvement Plan and is designated for General Industrial and Public Facilities uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that subject to meeting City standards and requirements and subject to a Disposition and Development Agreement or similar agreement with the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) in order to conform to the CIC policies, the project would be consistent with the adopted Community Improvement Plans (CIP's) for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community Improvement Project, and with the General Plan policies incorporated by reference within the CIP; and WHEREAS, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared by Lamphier & Associates was circulated for public comment between July 23 and August 22, 1997 and seven written public comments were received including: 1. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, August 19, 1997 (3 pages) 2. Alameda Marina Village, August 8, 1997 (3 pages) 3. California, State of, Department of Transportation, August 22, 1997 (2 pages) 4. East Bay Municipal Utility Distt`ict, August 8, 1997 (1 page) 5. Encinal Yacht Club, August 22, 1997 (1 page) 6. Port of Oakland, August 22, 1997 (3 pages) 7. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, August 20, 1997 (2 pages); and WHEREAS, staff has provided a written response to each letter of comment in a supplemental staff report dated August 26, 1997 and found that no significant impacts were identified which were not sufficiently discussed in the Initial Study and that the adequacy of the proposed mitigations was not challenged, and the staff response is hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on August 28, 1997, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents related to the application and considered and recommended City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -97- 02) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Initial Study and requested Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Montioring Program on September 16, 1997, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings and documents; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings: 2 The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population drop below sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of California history because the site is currently covered with a combination of pavement, gravel, open ground sparsely covered by predominantly non - native plant species and a remaining warehouse building. There is no identified area which is habitat for rare or endangered species. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals because the project will promote the long -term economic development of the site, and is consistent with the long -term goals of the General Plan to provide business uses and public shoreline access at the site. The project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable because the described project constitutes all intended changes to the project area, is not related to any other project or policy change, and will incorporate both project - specific mitigation measures and participate in area -wide mitigation measures. The project does not have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly because the construction of the proposed office/ research and development complex will enhance the existing office park uses at Marina Village and other business park and industrial use in the immediate vicinity of the subject site and provide public access shoreline enhancements. 5. The applicant has agreed to incorporate all the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration into the project. These mitigations would either avoid adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. There is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. WHEREAS, on the basis of the whole record before the City Council, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received upon it, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgement and analysis; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS- 97 -02) with findings (Attachment "A ") and the attached mitigation monitoring program (Attachment "B "). NOTICE: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167, a judicial challenge to the City Council's action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be brought within thirty (30) days after the filing of a Notice of Determination. G:\CC\RESO \5windis ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The following sets forth all significant effects of the Project, all of which can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and with respect to each effect, makes one or more of the findings set forth in the Introduction above, states facts in support of such findings. 1 Affordable Housing 1.2.1 Significant Effect. The failure of the Project proponent to incorporate an appropriate share of affordable housing (either on- or off - site), or make payment of the required in -lieu fees established by the City of Alameda would result in a potentially significant impact on the supply of affordable housing in Alameda. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, because the measures will provide funds to construct the needed affordable housing units). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) The Project proponent shall be required to pay an in -lieu Affordable Housing Impact Fee to the City of Alameda, according to the adopted City's Affordable Housing Fee schedule, or provide affordable housing (it is assumed that the Project applicants will choose to pay the Housing Fee). The fee is required by the City to be expended on programs for affordable housing (for very low- and low- income households), which will reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. (2) Payment of In -Lieu Housing Impact Fee, with payments required according to the current Fee Schedule, will be made by the Applicant at the time prescribed by the Affordable Housing Program for individual buildings, to be verified by the Central Permits Office. 1.2 Differential Settlement 1.2.1 Significant Effect. Due to the presence of up to 30 feet of soft, highly compressible Bay Mud underlying the surface fill material, large total and differential settlements may occur at the Project site due to increased loads from new fill and buildings. Settlement may vary considerably across the site, which could result in damage to buildings and paved areas which is a potentially significant impact. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, because the measures will ensure that the building foundation remain stable and will minimize settlement). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) To minimize these effects, finished site grading plans and structural systems of the planned buildings shall be designed to minimize abrupt grade changes and irregular concentration of building loads. Site grades shall remain as close to existing grades as possible to minimize post - construction settlement. Building foundations shall be anchored to the hard alluvial soils underlying the Bay Mud by concrete friction piles. A final geotechnical investigation shall be performed when structural loads become available to determine the feasibility of reducing pile length by surcharging building pads. Approach slabs at building entrances shall be constructed to accommodate differential settlement. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code and with recommendations contained in the preliminary and final geotechnical investigations. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (2) It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to submit the Final Geotechnical Study to the City Engineer and the Public Works Department for approval, complete with submission of grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. (3) Staff of the Public Works Department shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. 1.3 Lateral Displacement 1.3.1 Significant Effect. Strong groundshaking associated with an earthquake could laterally displace slopes adjacent to Alaska Basin and the Oakland Estuary. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because the measures will cause buildings to locate in the area which minimize lateral displacement). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) To avoid damage to Project buildings, they shall be set back at least 30 feet from the top of slopes. In addition, a final detailed geotechnical investigation shall be performed following completion of site grading and development plans. 2 Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (2) It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to submit the Final Geotechnical Study to the City Engineer and the Public Works Department for approval, complete with submission of grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. (3) Staff of the Public Works Department shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. 1.4 Pier Instability 1.4.1 Significant Effect. Heavy vehicular traffic, soil loading associated with landscaping, and strong groundshaking associated with an earthquake could undermine the structural stability of the heavy timber pier section of the proposed Project site, potentially resulting in collapse of all or a portion of the timber section. This could be a significant impact. However, as currently proposed, the Project would not permit vehicular traffic on the wooden pier. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been - required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because the measures will either increase structural load on the piers or provide for their replacement). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) The current proposal is that the wooden pier would be restricted to pedestrian use. If at any time in the future the.Project is changed to permit any other use, such as vehicular traffic or other loading of the heavy timber pier section, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Unsound wooden piers shall be replaced, and 3 to 5 rows of piling closest to the mooring edge shall be laterally braced by heavy horizontal timbers at 20 -foot intervals between the pier deck and the shore mud line. In addition, lateral cross - bracing shall be installed on at least 2 rows of piling parallel to the mooring edge of the pier. This measure would reduce the potential impact to an insignificant level. (2) It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to submit the Final Geotechnical Study to the City Engineer and the Public Works Department for approval, complete with submission of grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. (3) Staff of the Public Works Department shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. 1.5 Construction Emissions 1.5.1 Significant Effect. The construction- related air quality impact of the proposed Project would be due to dust generated by equipment and vehicles at the site. Fugitive dust is emitted by the action of equipment and vehicles and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing, grading and earthmoving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions; but, traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate significant dust emissions. The effects of construction activities would include increased settling of dust on horizontal surfaces in the vicinity of the Project site and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. (The prevailing downwind direction from the Project site is east - southeast.) Depending on the weather, soil conditions, amount of activity taking place and the nature of dust control efforts these impacts could extend downwind from the Project site, thereby affecting adjacent businesses by increasing soiling and requiring more frequent cleaning and /or maintenance activities. These impacts would occur for a period of approximately 24 months. Construction particulate impacts are considered potentially significant. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declarationflnitial Study, because the measure will prevent significant amounts of PM 10 (particles) from being released into the air). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Construction contracts shall require contractors to prepare and implement a construction dust mitigation plan for those periods of time when the moisture content of the soil is so low as to cause the possibility of dust movement off the site. An appropriate dust mitigation plan shall, at a minimum, include the following: (1) Provision of equipment and staffing for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily. An appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, shall be utilized. (2) Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. (3) Regular sweeping of construction area and adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later re- suspended by vehicle traffic. 4 (4) Enforcement of a speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all construction vehicles when off pavement. This speed restriction shall be incorporated into the construction contract and enforced by the prime contractor. Additional enforcement would be provided during visits by the project inspector. (5) All materials transported by truck will be covered or wetted down. (6) All inactive portions of the site will be watered with an appropriate dust suppressant, covered or seeded. (7) When the above dust control measures are unable to avoid visible dust plumes during periods of high winds (the wind speed at which this will occur will vary depending on moisture conditions on the site), all earthmoving or other dust - producing activities shall be suspended. The use of watering alone for dust control is estimated to reduce dust emissions by about 50 percent. The combined effect of the above measures, including the use of a dust suppressant, would have a control efficiency of 70 to 80 percent, which would be expected to reduce construction- related impacts to a less -than- significant level. (2) It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to submit a copy of the construction contract to the City Engineer and the Public Works Department, which shall include the above dust mitigation measures. (3) Staff of the Public Works Department shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans by the Applicant and Contractor. 1.6 Traffic 1.6.1 Significant Effect. The proposed project would have impacts on local streets, and would affect the level of service at the following intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project: Atlantic Avenue and Challenger Drive, Marina Village Parkway and Challenger Drive, Sherman Street at Buena Vista Avenue, and possibly at Triumph Drive and Atlantic Avenue. Project - generated traffic, in combination with cumulative traffic (i.e., traffic from existing and other concurrent development projects) would affect other local intersections including: Santa Clara at Sherman, Buena Vista at Entrance Road, and Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue. Finally project traffic could affect regional roadways including: the I- 880 on ramps at Jackson Street, the 7th and Harrison Streets intersection and the 5th Street and Broadway intersection. These impacts are potentially significant. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1) and (2). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). (Finding 2: Such changes or alterations are within 5 the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency). Finding of Equivalent Mitigation Measure The City Council finds, based upon the entire record before it, that the mitigation measure presented below in 1.6 (3)(b) is equivalent in scope and effectiveness to the mitigation measure identified and discussed in the Initial Study because the substitute measure will provide resources which will, with the contributions from other impacting projects, ensure that the I -880 corridor - Broadway /Jackson interchange will operate at acceptable levels of service. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance by insuring that the interspection and road signals operate at Level of Service "D" or better or otherwise performs at an acceptable level. (1) Traffic Improvement Contributions in Vicinity of Project Site The City of Alameda has planned traffic improvements at several locations in the project vicinity, including some of the intersections evaluated in the project Traffic Impact Study. As a condition of approval for new land use development projects, the City requires project developers to pay the pro -rata, or fair share costs of traffic improvements required to mitigate their impacts, based on their relative contribution'to the deterioration of traffic conditions. Although an individual project by itself may not cause the LOS of a given intersection to deteriorate substantially, it may have cumulative impacts that would combine with other development to cause deterioration over time. (Refer to the Initial Study for an explanation of Level of Service - LOS) The required mitigations ensure that no individual project will be burdened with the total costs of providing traffic mitigations when, for example, a minor, but cumulative impact increases an intersection delay by less than ten seconds and thereby "tips the scale" and causes a LOS D to deteriorate to LOS E. The project applicant will be required to contribute a fair share to the cost of the following improvements within the immediate vicinity of the project site: a. Installing a traffic signal at the Marina Village Parkway /Challenger Drive intersection. Installing a traffic signal at the Atlantic Avenue /Challenger Drive intersection. The applicant shall fully fund a separate right turn improvement on Atlantic Avenue at the intersection of Atlantic /Challenger to facilitate traffic flow, prior to the occupancy of Building One. c. Improvements to the intersection of Triumph Drive /Atlantic Avenue, if required. 6 Phase Three of the improvements to Sherman Street, which includes widening in the area of the Alameda Belt Line Railroad crossing, and other improvements including bicycle facilities, Buena Vista to Santa Clara.. e. Signalization/channelization of the main project driveway at Atlantic if warranted. The fair share contribution to these improvements will be determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions, as determined by the City Engineer, pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. (2) Other Local Traffic Improvement Contributions: The applicant shall contribute a fair share portion towards those traffic improvement projects which are expected to alleviate congestion or otherwise mitigate the cumulative impacts of the project on other local streets, as determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. (3) a. The Atlantic/Webster Intersection. b. The Buena Vista/ Entrance Intersection. Signalization at the intersection of Buena Vista and Entrance Road if warranted. c. Santa Clara/Sherman. If warranted, a fair share contribution to this improvement, as,determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions. Regional Cumulative Traffic Improvement Contributions. The applicant will be required to contribute its fair share to several projects addressing cumulative effects of traffic growth in west Alameda and the regional highway system as determined by the City Engineer. At present, the contemplated improvements which the applicant will be required to contribute its fair share to include: I -880 Corridor Broadway /Jackson Interchange, as described in the Notes of Meeting, 1-880 Corridor Broadway Jackson Interchange Improvements, dated July 31, 1997 and a one page plan graphic entitled City of Alameda Route 880 in Oakland Improve Access to Alameda, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. date stamped received on August 26, 1997, which are marked Exhibit "C" and are on file in the City of Alameda Planning Department. The applicant's fair share shall be based on the project's actual average am and pm peak hour traffic generation through the Interchange, divided by the total estimated am and pm peak hour traffic growth in the Interchange from 1997 to 2010, multiplied by the projected cost of the improvements at the time the applicant's contribution is due. Currently, this is estimated as approximately 2% of $17,000,000, which would be $340,000 based on trip generation as a standard office use. The actual contribution will be based on best traffic and cost estimates available at the time of contribution. Components may includel -980 Southbound Off Ramp at Jackson Into Tube , Posey Exit on 5th to I -880 Southbound On at Oak Street, Depressed right turn at 7th Harrison., Widen throats of Tubes, Dual I -880 Northbound On- ramp at Jackson w /auxiliary lane. 7 The fair share contribution to these improvements will be determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions, as determined by the City Engineer, pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. Direct mitigation of some of the cumulative impacts is beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Alameda, and are under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Oakland. (4) Other Traffic Mitigations. The applicant shall also make annual contributions for the BART Shuttle and other transportation systems management (TSM) measures already in place for the Marina Village development area, which will be needed to serve the project, as determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. (5) Project Traffic Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Program. The proposed use is basically an office use and office trip generation rates have been used to assess worst case traffic impacts. However, the project applicant's existing trip generation rates are substantially lower than those normally used for office uses, more like a Research and Development Use. Similar to other computer firms, Wind River Systems employees tend to travel to and from work outside of peak hours and work longer hours. The applicant has requested that the extent of project mitigation requirements be linked to the actual amount of traffic generated, especially at peak hours. If the project applicant's existing traffic systems management (TSM) measures, including flextime rules, continue to prevail, fewer of the contemplated mitigation measures or lower proportionate contributions may be necessary than would be the case under typical or standard office use conditions. Therefore, the extent of mitigation required beyond those specific measures set forth herein and the applicant's contribution towards mitigating cumulative impacts (and fair share costs thereof) will be determined on the basis of monitoring of actual Project traffic. The fair share of improvements in the project vicinity, shall be calculated on the percentage share of the project traffic compared to a base year of 1984 for those intersections listed. Project traffic shall be monitored beginning when the Project reaches 50 percent of projected maximum occupancy and continue until five years after completion of the Project. However, monitoring of the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Entrance Road will be continued indefinitely, until the City Engineer is reasonably satisfied with the operation of the intersection. The Project applicant shall bear the cost of monitoring Project traffic and the monitoring shall be accomplished in a manner and on a schedule reasonably acceptable to the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement or provide adequate security for the funding of such monitoring as well as for funding improvements, if found to be needed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Engineer prior to the issuance an occupancy permit for buildings one and two. This monitoring program will incorporate the monitoring requirements for all other traffic mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These actions would mitigate the potential traffic impacts of the project to a less than significant level. 1.7 Lead - Contaminated Soil 1.7 .1 Significant Effect. An extensive area of the Project site is contaminated with lead. Measured lead concentrations range from 2.5 to 43,000 mg/kg. Soil in an area measuring approximately 700 feet by 80 feet contains lead exceeding a concentration of 1,000 mg /kg, which is the EPA's Preliminary Remediation Goal for soil on commercial /industrial sites. The presence of this lead has the potential to cause adverse health effects on the Project occupants. Lead exposure has been shown to cause adverse health effects in humans, including the following: brain and nervous system damage; impaired reproductive function, including premature birth, low birth rate, and birth defects, including mental retardation; circulatory system damage, including high blood pressure, hypertension, stroke, and heart attack; and kidney damage. This is a significant impact on public health and safety, which can be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of the identified mitigation measure. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because the process will ensure that the site is remediated before grading to a level satisfactory to local and State regulatory agencies). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) All soil containing lead in concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg will be excavated and removed from the Project site by the current owners prior to Wind River System's acquisition of the Project site and prior to commencement of Project activities. (2) A Removal Action Workplan (Woodward- Clyde, Removal Action Workplan for Lead - Impacted Soil, Wind River Systems Site, Alameda, California, June 13, 1997) for performing the excavation and off -site disposal of lead - impacted soils was submitted to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health in June 1997 by the current property owners. The Department indicated that the approach would be acceptable, and that they anticipate approving the workplan in the near future. Removal of lead in accordance with the Removal Action Workplan would ensure that the impact of lead - contaminated soil would be insignificant. 9 A\ , It will be the responsibility ofthe Applicant to present proofto the City (City Engineer, and/or Public Works Dep that the mitigation has been performed by the previous land owner in compliance with the Removal Action Workplan approved by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health rior to the issuance of any permits for P jnct activities 1.8 TPH-Contaminated Soil 1.8.1 Significant Effects. TPH motor oil was detected at numerous locations throughout the Project site, at a maximum concentration of 8,800 nn/kg. A concentration of 3,100 mg/kg of TPH diesel was also detected in one soil sample taken from near the northern end ofthe site. Although the EPA has not established Preliminary Remediation Goals for TPH in soil, the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health has established 1,000 mg/kg as the maximum acceptable concentration nfTP}I motor oil in soil at the Project site, assuming there are no appreciable concentrations ofBTE}( or PNA. Therefore, this would be a si mificonticopac1 on public health and safety, but which can be reduced to an insi m �want level with implementation of the mitigation measure Findings. described below. The Ci Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental into zffectasidcntdOedintbe Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because the process will ensure that the site is remediated to a level satisfactory to local and State regulatory agencies). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of ii ifi . (1) On-site soil contaminated with TPH motor oil shall be lefi in place and covered with pavement, concrete slab on grade, or Iandscaping soil, to prevent human exposure or mi inn. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce this impact to an insignificant level (2) A Risk Management and/or Plan addressing the handling f TPH contaminated soil shall be developed and approved by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of permits to execute the plan. The Department has given preliminary indication that the planned approach would be acceptable, providing there are adequate buffers of clean soil at least 2 to 3 feet above groundwater and adequate encapsulation. The applicant shall preserlt grading plans that comply with the Risk Management and/or Remediation Plan approved by Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. (4) City Public Works staff shall inspect the grading upon cornpletion to determine compliance with approved plans. 10 It will be the responsibility of the Applicant, the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, the City Engineer, and the City of Alameda Public Works Department to ensure the effective implementation of the above program. 1.9 Pile Driving. 1.9 .1 Significant Effects. Construction of the proposed Project would require driving piles for building foundation support. Because the Project would be constructed in phases, the duration of pile driving activities would be reduced, but would recur each time a new phase of construction began. Typical pile driving equipment generates about 100 dBA of noise at 50 feet during each impact. The closest off -site building, which houses some offices, would be approximately 200 feet from the nearest pile - driving activity. Peak outdoor noise levels at this distance are predicted to be 89 dBA. With noise attenuation from typical office building facades of 30 dBA, this would result in an interior Lmax of 59 dBA. This level of sound may cause speech interference and annoyance at the adjacent land uses. This would be a significant impact unless it is mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of the following mitigation measure. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because the process will minimize the exposure to noise levels of 60 decibels (dBa) or higher). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) The hammer driving area shall be surrounded with a pile- driving shield to deflect and reduce noise. Pile driving activities shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to insignificance. (2) It will be the responsibility of the Applicant and Contractor to establish and conform to a schedule for pile driving which is approved by the City Engineer and the Engineering Department. 1.10 Schools 1.10.1 Significant Effects. The Project would result in new employee residents in Alameda. Therefore, the Project would indirectly result in an increased demand for enrollment at local schools. This impact is considered to be insignificant. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to a less than significant level as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). 11 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be further reduced to a less than significant level.. (1) The applicant shall be required to pay a per - square -foot impact fee for commercial development to the school district. (2) It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to make payment of the School District Impact Fee at the time of filing for building permit for individual buildings, and to provide certification of payment of the Fee to the Central Permits Office. Off -Site Glare .1 Significant Effect. Depending on the design of site lighting standards, including their height and luminaries, there may be adverse off -site glare to motorists and neighboring residential properties. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because the measures will substantially reduce the amount of glare from the project site). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) The City of Alameda will require the on -site lighting to meet standards for downward - directed lighting and shielding to avoid excessive leakage into adjacent residential areas. The applicant shall submit plans of lighting fixtures, including pole height and number of lights, for review. (2) The Planning Director shall review the photometric plan submitted by the applicant and determine whether the plans comply with her requirements. The Planning Director shall advise the applicant of the decision. (3) The applicant shall install all lighting in substantial compliance with the Photometric Plan approved by the Planning Director. (4) Planning Staff shall inspect the work upon completion to verify compliance with the Photometric Plan. The applicant may be required to modify the on -site lighting and may be required to install additional shielding in order to comply with the photometric plan_ 12 ATTACHMENT B WIND RIVER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM I. Impact: Affordable Housing. The failure of the Project proponent to incorporate an appropriate share of affordable housing (either on- or off-site), or make payment of the required in-lieu fees established by the City of Alameda would result in a potentially significant t impact on the supply of affordable housing in Alameda. Mitigation Measure: Payment of In-Lieu Affordable Housing Impact Fee. The Project proponent shall be required to provide affordable housing, or pay an in-lieu Affordable Housing Impact Fee to the City of Alameda, according to the adopted City's Affordable Housing Fee schedule. It is assumed that the Project applicants will choose to pay the Housing Fee. The fee is required by the City to be expended on programs for affordable housing (for very low- and low-income households), which will reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. The City will establish a time schedule for payment of the fees at the time it approves the Project. Responsibility: Applicant and Central Permits Office Action: Payment of In-Lieu Housing Impact fee to be made at the time required by the Affordable Housing Program, for individual buildings. II. Impact: Differential Settlement. Due to the presence of up to 30 feet of soft, highly compressible Bay Mud underlying the surface fill material, large total and differential settlements may occur at the Project site due to increased loads from new fill and buildings. Settlement may vary considerably across the site, which could result in damage to buildings and paved areas. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: Differential Settlement. To minimize these effects, finished site grading plans and structural systems of the planned buildings shall be designed to minimize abrupt grade changes and irregular concentration of building loads. Site grades shall remain as close to existing grades as possible to minimize post-construction settlement. Building foundations shall be anchored to the hard alluvial soils underlying the Bay Mud by concrete friction piles. A final geotechnical investigation shall be performed when structural loads become available to determine the feasibility of reducing pile length by surcharging building pads. Approach slabs at building entrances shall be constructed to accommodate differential settlement. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code and with recommendations contained in the preliminary and final geotechnical investigations. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer & Public Works Department Action: Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Study to City Engineer for approval. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. Public Works Staff shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. III. Impact: Lateral Displacement. Strong groundshaking associated with an earthquake could laterally displace slopes adjacent to Alaska Basin and the Oakland Estuary. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure: Lateral Displacement. To avoid damage to Project buildings, they shall be set back at least 30 feet from the top of slopes. In addition, a final detailed geotechnical investigation shall be performed following completion of site grading and development plans. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer & Public Works Department Action: Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Study to City Engineer for approval. 2 2. Applicant to submit grading and structura plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. 3. Public Works Staff shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. IV. Impact: Pier Instability. Heavy vehicular traffic, soil loading associated with landscaping, and strong groundshaking associated with an earthquake could undermine the structural stability of the heavy timber pier section of the proposed Project site, potentially resulting in collapse of all or a portion of the timber section. This could be a significant impact. However, as currently proposed, the Project would not permit vehicular traffic on the wooden pier. Mitigation Measure: Pier Limitations and Stabilization. The current proposal is that the wooden pier would be restricted to pedestrian use. If at any time in the future the Project is changed to permit any other use, such as vehicular traffic or other loading of the heavy timber pier section, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Unsound wooden piers shall be replaced, and 3 to 5 rows of pilings closest to the mooring edge shall be laterally braced by heavy horizontal timbers at 20-foot intervals between the pier deck and the shore mud line. In addition, lateral cross-bracing shall be installed on at least 2 rows of pilings parallel to the mooring edge of the pier. This measure would reduce the potential impact to an insignificant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer & Public Works Department Action: Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Study to City Engineer for approval. 2. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. 3. Public Works Staff shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. V. Impact: Construction Emissions. The construction-related air quality impact of the proposed Project would be due to dust generated by equipment and vehicles at the site. Fugitive dust is emitted by the action of equipment and vehicles and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing, grading and earthmoving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions; but, traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate significant dust emissions. The effects of construction activities would include increased settling of dust on horizontal surfaces in the vicinity of the Project site and locally elevated levels of PM,, downwind of construction activity. (The prevailing downwind direction from the Project site is east - southeast.) Depending on the weather, soil conditions, amount of activity taking place and the nature of dust control efforts these impacts could extend downwind from the Project site, thereby affecting adjacent businesses by increasing soiling and requiring more frequent cleaning and/or maintenance activities. These impacts would occur for a period of approximately 24 months. Construction particulate impacts are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure: Construction Emissions. Construction contracts shall require contractors to prepare and implement a construction dust mitigation plan for those periods of time when the moisture content of the soil is so low as to cause the possibility of dust movement off the site. An appropriate dust mitigation plan shall, at a minimum, include the following: Provision of equipment and staffing for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily. An appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, shall be utilized. Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Regular sweeping of construction area and adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can be pulverized and later re- suspended by vehicle traffic. Enforcement of a speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all construction vehicles when off pavement. This speed restriction shall be incorporated into the construction contract and enforced by the prime contractor. Additional enforcement would be provided during visits by the Project inspector. All materials transported by truck will be covered or wetted down. All inactive portions of the site will be watered with an appropriate dust suppressant, covered or seeded. When the above dust control measures are unable to avoid visible dust plumes during periods of high winds (the wind speed at which this will occur will vary depending on 4 moisture conditions on the site), all earthmoving or other dust - producing activities shall be suspended. The use of watering alone for dust control is estimated to reduce dust emissions by about 50 percent. The combined effect of the above measures, including the use of a dust suppressant, would have a control efficiency of 70 to 80 percent, which would be expected to reduce construction- related impacts to a less- than - significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, Contractor Action: Construction contract shall include the required mitigation measure. mpact: Traffic. The proposed project would have impacts on local streets, and would affect the level of service at the following intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project: Atlantic Avenue and Challenger Drive, Marina Village Parkway and Challenger Drive, Sherman Street at Buena Vista Avenue, and possibly at Triumph Drive and Atlantic Avenue. Project - generated traffic, in combination with cumulative traffic (i.e., traffic from existing and other concurrent development projects) would affect other local intersections including: Santa Clara at Sherman, Buena Vista at Entrance Road, and Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue. Finally project traffic could affect regional roadways including: the I -880 on ramps at Jackson Street, the 7th and Harrison Streets intersection and the 5th Street and Broadway intersection. These impacts are potentially significant. Action: In order to mitigate potential traffic impacts, the City would require the following comprehensive program: Traffic Improvement Contributions in Vicinity of Project Site: The City of Alameda has planned traffic improvements at several locations in the Project vicinity, including some of the intersections evaluated in the Project Traffic Impact Study. As a condition of approval for new land use development projects, the City requires project developers to pay the pro -rata, or fair share costs of traffic improvements required to mitigate their impacts, based on their relative contribution to the deterioration of traffic conditions. Although an individual project by itself may not cause the LOS of a given intersection to deteriorate substantially, it may have cumulative impacts that would combine with other development to cause deterioration over time. (Refer to the Initial Study for an explanation of Level of 5 Service - LOS) The required mitigations ensure that no individual project will be burdened with the total costs of providing traffic mitigations when, for example, a minor, but cumulative impact increases an intersection delay by Tess than ten seconds and thereby "tips the scale" and causes a LOS D to deteriorate to LOS E. The Project applicant will be required to contribute a fair share to the cost of the following improvements within the immediate vicinity of the project site: a. Installing a traffic signal at the Marina Village Parkway /Challenger Drive intersection. Installing a traffic signal at the Atlantic Avenue /Challenger Drive intersection. The applicant shall fund a separate right turn improvement on Atlantic Avenue at the intersection of Atlantic /Challenger to facilitate traffic flow, prior to the occupancy of Building One. c. Improvements to the intersection of Triumph Drive /Atlantic Avenue, required. Phase Three of the improvements to Sherman Street, including bicycle facilities, Buena Vista to Santa Clara. e. Signalization/channelization of main project driveway at Atlantic if warranted. The fair share contribution to these improvements will be determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions, as determined by the City Engineer, pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. Other Local Traffic Improvement Contributions: The applicant shall contribute a fair share portion towards those traffic improvement projects which are expected to alleviate congestion or otherwise mitigate the cumulative impacts of the Project on other local streets, as determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. a. The Atlantic/Webster Intersection. The Buena Vista/ Entrance Intersection. Signalization at the intersection of Buena Vista and Entrance Road if warranted. c. Santa Clara/Sherman If warranted, a fair share contribution to this improvement, as determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions. Regional Cumulative Traffic Improvement Contributions. The applicant will be required to contribute its fair share to several projects addressing cumulative effects of traffic growth in west Alameda and the regional highway system as determined by 6 the City Engineer. At present, the contemplated improvements which the applicant will be required to contribute its fair share to include: 1-880 Corridor Broadway/Jackson Interchange, as described in the Notes of Meeting, 1-880 Corridor Broadway/Jackson Interchange Improvements, dated July 31, 1997 and a one page plan graphic entitled City of Alameda Route 880 in Oakland Improve Access to Alameda, prepared by mark Thomas & Co. Inc. Date stamped received on August 26, 1997, which are marked Exhibit"C" and are on file in the City of Alameda Planning Department. The applicant's fair share shall be based on the project's actual average am and pm peak hour traffic generation through the Interchange, divided by the total estimated am and pm peak hour traffic growth in the Interchange from 1997 to 2010, multiplied by the projected cost of the improvements at the time the applicant's contribution is due. Currently, this is estimated as approximately 2% of $17,000,000, which would be $340,000 based on trip generation as a standard office use. The actual contribution will be based on best traffic and cost estimates available at the time of contribution. Components may include 1-880 Southbound Onramp at Oak Street, Depressed right turn at 7th/ Harrison, Widen throats of Tubes, Dual I-880 Northbound On-ramp at Jackson with auxiliary lane. The fair share contribution to these improvements will be determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions, as determined by the City Engineer, pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. 4. Other Traffic Mitigations. The applicant shall also make annual contributions for the BART Shuttle and other transportation systems management (TSM) measures already in place for the Marina Village development area, which will be needed to serve the Project, as determined by monitoring actual traffic conditions pursuant to the Traffic Monitoring Program outlined below. 5. Project Traffic Impact Mitigation and Monitoring Program. The proposed use is basically an office use and office trip generation rates have been used to assess worst case traffic impacts. However, the Project applicant's existing trip generation rates are substantially lower than those normally used for office uses, more like a Research and Development Use. Similar to other computer firms, staff tend to travel to and from work outside of peak hours and work longer hours. The applicant has requested that the extent of Project mitigation requirements depend on the actual amount of traffic generated, especially at peak hours. If the Project applicant's existing traffic systems management (TSM) measures, including flextime rules, continue to prevail, fewer of the contemplated mitigation measures or lower proportionate contributions may be necessary than would be the case under typical or standard office use conditions. Therefore, the extent of mitigation required beyond thosc specific measures set forth herein and the applicant's contribution towards mitigating cumulative impacts (and fair share costs thereof) will be determined on the basis of monitoring of actual Project traffic. 7 The fair share of improvements in the project vicinity, shall be calculated on the percentage share of the project traffic compared to a base year of 1984 for those intersections listed. Project traffic shall be monitored beginning when the Project reaches 50 percent of projected maximum occupancy and continue until five years after completion of the Project. However, monitoring of the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Entrance Road will be continued indefinitely, until the City Engineer is reasonably satisfied with the operation of the intersection. The Project applicant shall bear the cost of monitoring Project traffic and the monitoring shall be accomplished in a manner and on a schedule reasonably acceptable to the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement or provide adequate security for the funding of such monitoring as well as for funding improvements, if found to be needed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Engineer prior to the issuance an occupancy permit for buildings one and two. This monitoring program will incorporate the monitoring requirements for all other traffic mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These actions would mitigate the potential traffic impacts of the project to a less than significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer, Public Works Department VII. Impact: Lead- Contaminated Soil. An extensive area of the Project site is contaminated with lead. Measured lead concentrations range from 2.5 to 43,000 mg/kg. Soil in an area measuring approximately 700 feet by 80 feet contains lead exceeding a concentration of 1,000 mg/kg, which is the EPA's Preliminary Remediation Goal for soil on commerciaUindustrial sites. The presence of this lead has the potential to cause adverse health effects on the Project occupants. Lead exposure has been shown to cause adverse health effects in humans, including the following: brain and nervous system damage; impaired reproductive function, including premature birth, low birth rate, and birth defects, including mental retardation; circulatory system damage, including high blood pressure, hypertension, stroke, and heart attack; and kidney damage. This is a significant impact on public health and safety, which can be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of the following mitigation measure. 8 Mitigation Measure: Lead - Contaminated Soil. All soil containing lead in concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg will be excavated and removed from the Project site by the current owners prior to Wind River System's acquisition of the Project site and prior to commencement of Project activities. A Removal Action Workplan (Woodward- Clyde, Removal Action Workplan for Lead - Impacted Soil, Wind River Systems Site, Alameda, California, June 13, 1997) for performing the excavation and off -site disposal of lead - impacted soils was submitted to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health in June 1997 by the current property owners. The Department indicated that the approach would be acceptable, and that they anticipate approving the workplan in the near future: Removal of lead in accordance with the Removal Action Workplan would ensure that the impact of lead - contaminated soil would be insignificant. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer, Public Works Department Action: The applicant shall present proof to the City that the mitigation has been performed by the previous land owner in compliance with the Removal Action Workplan approved by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance of any permits for Project activities. II. Impact: "PH- Contaminated Soil. TPH motor oil was detected at numerous locations throughout the Project site, at a maximum concentration of 8,800 mg/kg. A concentration of 3,100 mg/kg of TPH diesel was also detected in one soil sample taken from near the northern end of the site. Although the EPA has not established Preliminary Remediation Goals for TPH in soil, the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health has established 1,000 mg/kg as the maximum acceptable concentration of TPH motor oil in soil at the Project site, assuming there are no appreciable concentrations of BTEX or PNA. Therefore, this would be a significant impact on public health and safety, but which can be reduced to an insignificant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure: TPH- Contaminated Soil. On -site soil contaminated with TPH motor oil shall be left in place and covered with pavement, concrete slab on grade, or landscaping soil, to prevent human exposure or migration. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. 9 Responsibility: Applicant, Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, City Engineer, Public Works Action: A Risk Management and/or Remediation Plan addressing the handling of TPH- contaminated soil shall be developed and approved by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health prior to issuance of permits to execute the plan. The Department has given preliminary indication that the planned approach would be acceptable, providing there are adequate buffers of clean soil at least 2 to 3 feet above groundwater and adequate encapsulation. 2. The applicant shall present grading plans that comply with the Risk Management and/or Remediation Plan approved by Alameda County Department of Environmental Health: City Public Works staff shall inspect the grading upon completion to determine compliance with approved plans. IX. Impact: Pile Driving. Construction of the proposed Project would require driving piles for building foundation support. Because the Project would be constructed in phases, the duration of pile driving activities would be reduced, but would recur each time a new phase of construction began. Typical pile driving equipment generates about 100 dBA of noise at 50 feet during each impact. The closest off-site building, which houses some offices, would be approximately 200 feet from the nearest pile-driving activity. Peak outdoor noise levels at this distance are predicted to be 89 dBA. With noise attenuation from typical office building facades of 30 dBA, this would result in an interior L 59 dBA. This level of sound may cause speech interference and annoyance at the adjacent land uses. This would be a significant impact unless it is mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of the following mitigation measure Mitigation Measure: Pile Driving. The hammer driving area shall be surrounded with a pile-driving shield to deflect and reduce noise. Pile driving activities shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to insignificance. 10 Responsibility: Applicant, Contractor, Central Permits Office, Action: 1 The contractors schedule for pile driving shall conform with the Mitigation. X. Impact: Schools. The Project would result in new employee residents of Alameda. Therefore, the Project would indirectly result in an increased demand for enrollment at local schools. This impact would be insignificant. Mitigation Measure: Schools.. Although this impact is not defined as significant, the applicant shall be required to pay a per-square-foot impact fee for commercial development to the school district. Responsibility: Applicant and Central Permits Office Actions: Payment of In-Lieu Impact fee to be made at the time of filing for building permit for individual buildings. Impact: Off-Site Glare. Depending on the design of site lighting standards, including their height and luminaries, there may be adverse off-site glare to motorists and neighboring residential properties. Mitigation Measure: Shielded Site Lighting. The City of Alameda will require the on-site lighting to meet standards for downward-directed lighting and shielding to avoid excessive leakage into adjacent residential areas. Responsibility: Applicant, Public Works 11 Action: The applicant shall submit plans of lighting fixtures, including pole height and number of lights, for review. 2. The Planning Director shall review the photometric plan submitted by the applicant and determine whether the plans comply with her requirements. The Planning Director shall advise the applicant of the decision. The applicant shall install all lighting in substantial compliance with the Photometric Plan approved by the Planning Director. 4. Planning Staff shall inspect the work upon completion to verify compliance with the Photometric Plan. The applicant may be required to modify the on-site lighting and may be required to install additional shielding in order to comply with the photometric plan. 12 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of September , 1997, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas and President Appezzato - 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: Councilmember Kerr - 1. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 17th day of September , 1997. III Diane Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda